Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Byson1
Zan Industries ZADA ALLIANCE
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 04:58:00 -
[1051] - Quote
The passive shield tankers have always been better overall in my opinion, I see nothing is going to change. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 06:27:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ? I'm going to try new HAM Legion as soon as I skill for it. Change of rigs penalty is very appreciated. Also, I plan to have 1 rep loaded of nanites on my WH battleship, for emergency situations. Sleepers can hit hard, you know. Furthermore, in wormhole, PVE can easily escalate to PVP. So in general, I'm happy to meet those changes both for PVP and PVE.
That being said, I still hate the whole ancillary idea for armor tanking. Make all reps charge-able with nano-paste and we're perfectly fine. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 09:01:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?
Joke , huge disapointment. This ancilary thing ... i mean it's fine, but it's only for pvp and it doesn't fix any problem actually. Shield tanked ships often , i would say VERY often use capless weapon systems (projectile, missiles). So CCP logic is : give them capless shield booster(WTF). Now let's say amarrian ship super cap hungry with lasers gets ancilary armore repairer that still needs cap to cycle. Balance all the way.
There is straight and simple need to reduce MAR cycle time and/or increase amount repaired. If that is not going to happen then actually almost nothing will be done for pve activer armor tanking.
I would be big fan of small experiment : let's change so ancilary shield booster consumes cap/booster for more boosting and ancilary armor repaired does not take cap but paste. But hell no you use lasers, then you must also use cap for propulsion, neuting, ewar, reparing, hardeners to make things cool.
But i know why such things are going on. Amarrian ships got too many mid slots. I mean often 2 or 3. SOOOOOOOOOO many after propulsion and super obligatory cap booster there is so much possibilites. NOT.
Fit two co proc in the lows instead of reppers and two xlasb in the mids instead of cap boosters on your abbadon, then add two hardeners in the mids and fill lows with heatsinks/tracking enhancers. Better tank, much better damage and better efficiency in cap batteries use. ASB everywhere, as intended. |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 12:51:00 -
[1054] - Quote
fukier wrote:dont see this mentioned but on sisi the skill armor resistance phasing now reduces RAT by 10% for cycle and 5% to cap usuage per level
As it has for months, on tranquility no less. |
JamesCLK
287
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:30:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.
I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE... Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle. Malcanis, Marc Scaurus,-áMynnna and Ripard Teg for CSM 8! |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Zombie Ninja Space Bears
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:50:00 -
[1056] - Quote
edit: stupid me... nevermind |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
963
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:55:00 -
[1057] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.
I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE... Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle. That will destroy all the fun of active tanking. It's fun precisely cause it doesn't regenerate like a fugly drake, but pumps HP in large chunks instead. 14 |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
275
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 16:42:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.
I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE... Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle. That will destroy all the fun of active tanking. It's fun precisely cause it doesn't regenerate like a fugly drake, but pumps HP in large chunks instead. Actually, I think he may be onto something.
Even if there were only 2 pulses, it would be more in line with the 'constant' of armour tanking over the 'burst' of shield tanking. Keep the AAR to one burst, but all other armour reppers could give 50% of their gain half way through a cycle and the other 50% at the end.
This effect is already emulated by staggering reppers, why not make it part of single reppers functionality. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 17:29:00 -
[1059] - Quote
mental maverick wrote:So I did some testing with the Ancillary Armor Repairer on the test server tonight and my first impression is that it is pretty awesome. Previously i've mainly flown dual rep setups whenever I have gone for an armor tank, pretty much tried craming 2 reppers on every hull imaginable, but for the AARs I figured the plate/rep setup would be the best so thats what i've tested tonight. Used no implants or links and I have no EFT numbers or anything, this was just flying around pvping and getting the feel of it. I tested mainly with a BS buffer/repper setup since I figured that kind of hybrid tank would be the one benefitting most from the AAR. Without implants or links I still felt it performed better then I expected, and this was on a Tempest and a Mega which neither have any kind of armor bonus. With just 1 cap booster, thus freeing up a mid slot, I still felt I had plenty of cap to spare for repositioning, semi kiting, smartbombing drones, neuting while at the same time running my repper, a luxury I usually dont have when running dual reps. One thing I noticed a lot of times though is when I get 1 target tackled and I know he has friends incoming, I want to run my repper so he doesn't whittle away my buffer before his friends arrive but if I do that I use my "Nanite boost" before I really need it. So it's either having a low buffer when the gang lands but still have my "Nanite boost" available or have a topped up buffer but only maybe half of my Nanites left. Would it make the AARs totally overpowered if we had the ability to turn the "Nanite boost" on and off in order to save it for when it's needed? PS. sry about the "nanite boost" thingy, didn't know wtf to call it I was actually thinking something along the lines of this. Perhaps if charges were only used if overheated or something in order to use minor boosts up until you need the large burst. That is, of course, assuming that there is no way to code a toggle so that it either consumes charges or not.
|
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:00:00 -
[1060] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:
- AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.
- AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.
As far as I can see the ARR's are not taking ship bonus's in to account I.E armour ships that get a bonus to reps
Example:
Large armour rep gives 600 per cycle. On a Kronos with its 7.5 per level bonus with marauders to 5 it gives 825 per cycle. Large AAR gives 450 per cycle as it should be. On a Kronos it only gives 1350 per cycle with paste but does not get the 7.5 per leve Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:26:00 -
[1061] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:
- AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.
- AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.
As far as I can see the ARR's are not taking ship bonus's in to account I.E armour ships that get a bonus to reps Example: Large armour rep gives 600 per cycle. On a Kronos with its 7.5 per level bonus with marauders to 5 it gives 825 per cycle. Large AAR gives 450 per cycle as it should be. On a Kronos it only gives 1350 per cycle with paste but does not get the 7.5 per leve I have also confirmed this on my myrmidon on the test server. With paste it should normally boost 702 armor without any rigs or ship bonuses helping it. After a boost on my myrmidon, it still boosts only 702 HP. I took the difference in armor HP from before and after the boost.
Also, after putting the paste into the AAR, it does not update the repair amount in the show info window when fitted. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:28:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:DJWiggles wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:
- AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.
- AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.
As far as I can see the ARR's are not taking ship bonus's in to account I.E armour ships that get a bonus to reps Example: Large armour rep gives 600 per cycle. On a Kronos with its 7.5 per level bonus with marauders to 5 it gives 825 per cycle. Large AAR gives 450 per cycle as it should be. On a Kronos it only gives 1350 per cycle with paste but does not get the 7.5 per leve I have also confirmed this on my myrmidon on the test server. With paste it should normally boost 702 armor without any rigs or ship bonuses helping it. After a boost on my myrmidon, it still boosts only 702 HP.
Yep looks like a bonus is not being applied correctly somewhere Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3801
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 20:51:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:20:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Oh, my mistake. I didn't take the base amount from the module in the station. I took it from the base amount when loaded in the ship. I guess I shouldn't test anymore after a silly mistake like that. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:34:00 -
[1065] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see.
I havnet tried all boats but will do once im off the radio Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3805
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:57:00 -
[1066] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see. I havnet tried all boats but will do once im off the radio
We're aware that the Hype, Paladin, Kronos and Vangel, as well as Exile boosters are broken on that Sisi build. All fixed internally. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 22:14:00 -
[1067] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:DJWiggles wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see. I havnet tried all boats but will do once im off the radio We're aware that the Hype, Paladin, Kronos and Vangel, as well as Exile boosters are broken on that Sisi build. All fixed internally.
Yep all good and gravy just checked the ones i can and its reporting good :) happy to be of service
Also just worked out that i can get 2859.96 HP every 11.25 seconds on brutix with a large on there that is before boosters but with rigs and top grade implants Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
414
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 22:56:00 -
[1068] - Quote
Don't overbuff armor. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:38:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor. +1 |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:58:00 -
[1070] - Quote
TravelBuoy wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor. +1 -1 , sure keep shield dominating forever , soon abaddons will go shield tanked. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
521
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:03:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor.
Indeed, giving them more med slots could make them use more ASB fits making armor ships shield tanked totally OP.
But please be our guest to explain what overbuff active armor tanking is being given. I'd like to learn some stuff.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:32:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor. Indeed, giving them more med slots could make them use more ASB fits making armor ships shield tanked totally OP. But please be our guest to explain what overbuff active armor tanking is being given. I'd like to learn some stuff.
Naomi Anthar wrote:TravelBuoy wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor. +1 -1 , sure keep shield dominating forever , soon abaddons will go shield tanked.
I don't know if he's so much saying "don't keep fixing armour so it's not clearly inferior" so much as "please don't make armour the way shield is now, the clear winner in most cases", and most certainly: "don't make armour OP."
Probably just a matter of asking CCP to be careful with what they do, rather than accidentally jump into something headfirst and release a module even MORE OP than the ASB's were. Those were bad enough, y'know?
Of course he might be one of those people who has all his skills in shield tanking and wants shields to be better than armour so he doesn't even need to think about training other tanking skills for any reason whatsoever. *shrugs* You never know who you're dealing with on these forums. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:40:00 -
[1073] - Quote
"Of course he might be one of those people who has all his skills in shield tanking and wants shields to be better than armour so he doesn't even need to think about training other tanking skills for any reason whatsoever. *shrugs* You never know who you're dealing with on these forums."
And also many people including me are afraid that CCP is already "too careful what they do". Meaning they will fail to balance situation. If armor will even will slightly be better, then it's better than keeping shield only choice forever. Tho i'm bigger fan of those 2 systems being equally powerful... but if we need something to be overpowered for sake of what is all sacred it cannot be shield once again. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:50:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote: "Of course he might be one of those people who has all his skills in shield tanking and wants shields to be better than armour so he doesn't even need to think about training other tanking skills for any reason whatsoever. *shrugs* You never know who you're dealing with on these forums."
And also many people including me are afraid that CCP is already "too careful what they do". Meaning they will fail to balance situation. If armor will even will slightly be better, then it's better than keeping shield only choice forever. Tho i'm bigger fan of those 2 systems being equally powerful... but if we need something to be overpowered for sake of what is all sacred it cannot be shield once again.
Oh how I would love perfect balance. But that's a tough thing to do. I don't mind if they overpower armour a bit. I just don't want them jumping in and rather than just making it stronger than shield, they make it so the only feasible option is armour tanking. Sure, armour tanking is inferior right now. Sure, there aren't a lot of reasons to armour tank (though some do exist, including AHAC fleets, slowcats, Archons in general, etc.) but what I don't want to see is a day of Armour tanking where there is literally no reason at all to fly shields, not even that you have better skills because a 10 minute train in armour makes it so clearly a better choice than shield.
I do want balance, and if they make armour too strong in the process I'm willing to live with it. But varying degrees of too strong. "Oops, shield is inferior" versus "Oops, armour BS's can now fit 4 million EHP with a 4 slot tank while moving as fast as shield BS's". |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 01:04:00 -
[1075] - Quote
I do understand you and i'm glad some people are not afraid of changes. Honestly, tho i'm armor tanking trained i want to fly some shield tanking ships in the future too. And overral i think they should be both good where there is no clear winner as it is now. Those changes so far are for me not enough. But it's my personal oppinion. For me it looks like it's gallente lovefest. To somehow make them happy with thier armor rep bonus. If we don't count ancilary armor repairer then there is not much done. Sure some armor is "less heavy" etc and some rigs also does not make us so slow now. But still hp per second provided by shield boosters is really too superior compared to what reps give.
I will say something i said already. If you not use ancilary armor repairer - is that pve or pvp then you got no upgrade to repairing time or rep amount at all. Some cosmetical changes that do help but nothing really boosted.
Just because you intruduce ancilary thing once again shouldn't make reps we got now completly useless. They need some more love than oh well it's not 150pwg now but 120. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
515
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:09:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:... For me it looks like it's gallente lovefest. To somehow make them happy with thier armor rep bonus.. I am of Amarr and don't fly anything but Amarr/Khanid and I too feel the love, so it is not just the designer-turd flying population it is meant for but rather the *shock* armour population. Resist bonus will lose out to the straight rep bonus in the short term, but has benefits beyond and Amarr hulls generally have better capacitors and slightly more base armour.
Don't underestimate the effect of lowered fittings on MAR/LAR, will still require sacrifices but only the one child and not the whole family .. having 'proper' gear, even if downsized, in all slots instead of having to top up with fitting rigs/modules is huge! Only thing I would like to see is fitting for buffer modules being ramped up, especially now that their penalties are being reduced, buffering will still be the best option in most situations as neuting is omni-present (AAR cap dependent) and armour ships generally need their cap to bite peoples faces off .... a +25-50% to plate fitting requirements would suffice, 1600's still more than viable on BCs but not on cruisers (without sacrifice). It is one thing to make active viable, but making people abandon what is more often than not the better option is a whole other can.
|
JamesCLK
289
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:47:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Don't overbuff armor. I agree, we should nerf shield tanking too. Malcanis, Marc Scaurus,-áMynnna and Ripard Teg for CSM 8! |
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:53:00 -
[1078] - Quote
I've left this sitting for a while but i have some comments and questions i'd like to address:
AARGÇÖs GÇô I felt at first this was a little un-inventive, but the separation of PVE and PVP is something many MMOGÇÖs are scared to do - and Ancillary modules do this in a way that makes sense. However there are several issues with this. The first of which is something CCP cannot change, but still the player base is restricted to.
Cap boosters Vs.Nanite Paste: On XL -shield and L-armor, large AAR cost twice as much isk per cycle (paste is 20k per unit x 10, navy boosters are 100k per unit x1). This means 2 things:
1.ItGÇÖs MUCH more expensive to run an AAR and 2.The lack of GÇÿNavy PasteGÇÖ means that either large AARGÇÖs have a disadvantage over XL-ASBGÇÖs or, if you are balancing these rep amounts against *assumed* navy cap boosters, small AARGÇÖs have an advantage over small ASBGÇÖs (there is no navy 25 booster). Does this make any sense?
With that in mind, IGÇÖll simply say: DonGÇÖt complicate things just because you want armour and shield to be distinct. Balance is more important than distinction as long as things are not homogenisedGǪ which is not an issue with these 2 modules. Make AARGÇÖs use cap boosters until you have a better way of fuelling them without these issue arising.
ASBGÇÖs are amazing, although they offer good GÇÿburst tankGÇÖ they do not give more EHP in their first cycle than shield extenders/resists. The 2 advantages they instead offer are:
1.Lower sig radius. 2.Zero capacitor cost.
By making AARGÇÖs using cap AND charges, you are pre-nerfing them. Amarr especially suffer from large cap issues as well as being generally quite heavy and slow. The AAR solves the speed issue by replacing plates with an ancillary module, but ANY cap cost is too severe versus a plated tank. Most Amarr ships struggle to be cap stable using guns never mind anything else. This necessitates the use of a cap booster, which defeats the primary benefit of a fuelled booster.
Neut pressure is a huge deal also. Most plated, totally passive ships fit a cap booster just to let them fire guns under neut pressure. AARGÇÖs are just a way of getting delayed EHP under light to moderate incoming DPS so they really are just GÇÿplates but in a different wayGÇÖ. The benefit of an AAR is that you donGÇÖt lose speed, the benefit of a plate is that you canGÇÖt be alphaGÇÖd as easily. Adding cap use to the AAR just makes it not worth fitting on most ships that donGÇÖt already fit an active repper. Yes, IGÇÖm sure 1 large AAR and 2 normal LAR IIGÇÖs on a tri-rep, dual cap injected hyperon will r0x0r, but on ships such as the Omen/Zealot or Deimos they still will prefer a plate or simply a passive shield tank.
HonestlyGǪ remove the cap usage. Beginning of cycle versus end of cycle HP gains balances out the AARGÇÖs superior cap viability when out of charges when measured against the lower cap efficiency but higher EHP gain of the ASB when out of charges.
On another note: The rig changes are excellent. |
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 09:36:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:"As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way."
Sorry fozzie, but the only service it provided was to completely turn the current balance of the game upside down... ASBs have honestly done nothing positive for the game other than making omg bbq setups that even further break the disparity between pilots with links and not. Also, no one really uses normal shield boosters for pvp anymore....
ASB was a mistake from day one, if you and the rest of your team have trouble understanding this it's because you're simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring any kind of reason.
There is no reason to add "a new flavor to armor tanking" when the current flavor is broken at it's core. Go and fix broken stuff before you do something silly like adding new overpowered t1 only bandaid crap.
"The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments."
The solution is to either un gimp other tanking bonuses, or simply nerf the extremely overpowered resistance bonus... There is a reason resistance bonus ships have been the mainstay in fleets in the past and will be for the foreseeable future...
quit whineing Ancill shield boosters are what shield ships needed to break the monopoly armor ships had on pvp as a whole. |
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 09:41:00 -
[1080] - Quote
armor is still superior for pvp fleets as it has much higher EHP yealds then shield and saved mids for prop and tackle and/or cap boosters, whilst shield needed ancil booster to minimize the amound of tank slots they lost while also beign able to fit prop and tackle. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |